Get audit status and report

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial context beyond the read-only annotations: ownership restriction, recommended polling cadence, the progress pipeline, and short-lived download URLs for JSON and Excel outputs. These are operationally important behaviors an agent needs before calling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Core purpose and polling guidance are clear and mostly front-loaded after the availability note. Minor redundancy appears with 'FREE' in the bracket and 'Free with a WebAbility account' repeated at the end.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an async audit-status tool with no output schema, the description covers return values, progress stages, completion artifacts, polling behavior, and access restrictions. The single input parameter is fully documented in the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as the audit id returned by start_audit. The description reinforces that source but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('an audit started with start_audit'), and describes exactly what it returns: overall status, per-step progress, and completion artifacts. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling start_audit tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to check an audit started with start_audit, gives polling guidance ('Poll every ~15s while status is pending/running'), and states an access exclusion ('Only the account that started an audit can read it'). It also explains the hosted MCP connection prerequisite.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.